Excerpts,
" The usual way a high-profile project such as BEST would publish its results would be in a scientific journal,
following a rigorous ‘peer review’ by other experts in the field.

The more eminent journals that publish climate research, such as Nature And Science, insist
there must be no leaks to the media until this review is complete and if such leaks occur,
they will automatically reject the research.

Earlier this year, the project completed four research papers.

As well as trends in world temperatures, they looked at the extent to which
temperature readings can be distorted by urban ‘heat islands’ and
the influence of long-term temperature cycles in the oceans.
The papers were submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research.

But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers,
Prof Muller failed to consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month,
when the peer review process had barely started, and
to issue a detailed press release at the same time.

He also briefed selected journalists individually.
‘It is not how I would have played it,’ Prof Curry said.
‘I was informed only when I got a group email.
I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did.’

‘It would have been smart to consult me.’ She said
it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers,
the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.

Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people
who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are
currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz
is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review process.’

In Prof Curry’s view, two of the papers were not ready to be published,
in part because they did not properly address the arguments of climate sceptics.

As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said:
‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause,
just as the other sets of data do.
Muller is hiding the decline."

and,

" Prof Muller defended his behaviour yesterday, saying that all he was doing was
‘returning to traditional peer review’, issuing draft papers
to give the whole ‘climate community’ a chance to comment.

As for the press release, he claimed he was ‘not seeking publicity’, adding:
‘This is simply a way of getting the media to report this more accurately.’

He said his decision to publish was completely unrelated to the forthcoming United Nations climate conference. "